It's not logical to value logic, if that's what your saying. That just doesn't flow.

If you agree that no values are objective, then no particular value is more logical than another, including valuing logic itself. You will be doing more logic by adopting logic as a value, but the initial choice to value logic is not a product of performing any logical mental operation.

Isn't the inherent lack of objective values the basis for nihilism? Then you can't go ahead and say adopting some value is more 'logical' than adopting another, even if that value is logic itself! What you value is a personal 'choice' (sometimes i even doubt this, you value what your genes and upbrining 'value'), there is no benchmark above and beyond your own 'will to power' with which to vindicate your choice. Objectively speaking, you are alone and you adopt a value set based on 'emotion' rather than any sort of 'rightness' or 'wrongness', including logical rightness and wrongness.

So the world is logical. Check. We've gone to the moon by relying on the stability, and lawfulness of nature.Logic has utility. Check. Perceiving cause/effect lets you get shit done, and satisfy preferences etc.Utility is to be valued. Wrong. According to what objective measure?

You cannot construct an argument which points to the inherent rationality of valuing logic. If you happen to think that some values are more logical than others, then you think some values are objectively better then others. I don't want to 'attack you' as such but this is not nihilism but dogmatism. It's dishonest.

I refuse to believe that you, as you seem to be the public face for ANUS on these forums, maintain that value is essentially objective (because some are more 'logical' than others). You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't preach that belief in inherent values is simply anthropomorphism, on the the one hand, so that people come to realize that the belief that all human life is sacred and or that we're all equal etc is just a projection of their own minds, and on other hand preach the inherent value of 'logic', which you are doing, I would assert, by saying that valuing logic is itself logical. Yes, logic exists, but the value 'logic is good' or 'living more logically and less emotionally is good' (or something like that), does not.

Have the strength to acknowledge that your values are arbitrary, due to the subjective nature of 'value'. Then you can get on with trying to effect change rather than preaching to people that your values reflect 'the only way to live'. You will value 'logic' only if you are a certain sort of organism with a certain perspective and will to power, not because being logical is objectively the right way to live. Come on.

"Logic", as far as I understand it, is an English word for both an observed set of pretty basic real principles and a primary system (which influences all other computational systems) based on these observed principles. Also, as far as I understand it, the second (more common usage of the term) "logic" is not a perfect system, as it is axiomatic (as all system must be to be complete, see Godel's Badass Theorem).

"Logic", as far as I understand it, is an English word for both an observed set of pretty basic real principles and a primary system (which influences all other computational systems) based on these observed principles. Also, as far as I understand it, the second (more common usage of the term) "logic" is not a perfect system, as it is axiomatic (as all system must be to be complete, see Godel's Badass Theorem).

Logic just tries to give you the best way (in so far as preserving truth) to reason from a set of premises to a conclusion. It does not tell you which premises to adopt, in the first place, which is where conservationist is going wrong. That is simply a product of your organism.

Quote

..instead of trying to "prove" meaning, we pick what appeals to us -- and acknowledge that who we are biologically determines what we seek....In rejecting anthropomorphic pathetic fallacies such as inherent "meaning," nihilism allows us to toss out anthropomorphism. The idea of an absolute morality, or any value to human life, is discarded." (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/prozak/belief_in_nothing/)

Seems like the premise should be the world we are presented with, and the observable, repeatable way it functions. Reality I guess, as it's termed here. Now we can apply logic in route to a conclusion, essentially determining ideal reproductive success in congruence with reality.

Seems like the premise should be the world we are presented with, and the observable, repeatable way it functions. Reality I guess, as it's termed here. Now we can apply logic in route to a conclusion, essentially determining ideal reproductive success in congruence with reality.

Reality is not enough of a premise to determine what one should value in life. "People are alive" is not enough to reason your way to "all killing is bad", you would need an additional "I believe all life is valuable" to have logic get you there.

Isn't the claim that there is no objective measure of value an objective measurement of value?

Well, we would need to look very closely about what there being no values implies, and what it means to make a value judgment.

(possible answer) From the perspective of the Subject, there are two aspects of the world - the Subject itself, and that which lies outside of the Subject, with the interface between the two being the Subject's Representation of Objects (broadly speaking). I think the "no objective value" means that we can't point to something outside of the Subject, and say that this is where value lies - however there may well be something like value contained in the Subject. This is a similar idea I believe to that of "Maya" - there is an ultimate reality, but that which we think to be ultimate reality is not ultimate reality, and anything we think is it isn't really it because we are so tied into it that we are unable to separate it out, though we can somewhat infer that it exists based on our present conceptualisations.

I would say that the true measure of value is simply what the Will wills, which of course is only how I see it as current and is not truly an objective measure of value. From the Nietzschean perspective, that is good which increases Power, that is bad which decreases it, where Power is roughly the Will being able to make itself known. From this perspective, to attribute value to a concept in one's Representation is to deny the Will, and so our aim is to help remove these shackles of rule-based morality so that one can become better in touch with their True morality. This thread has suggested reducing morality back to what we innately, as biological organisms, feel to be valuable, but this is only an intermediate step. The idea is to get closer and closer to what we feel innately to be valuable beyond anything else.

No objective value, means that true value cannot be inferred through objects, however by the processes of our Will we may attempt to get closer and closer to what value truly is.

Nihilism is the name given to such a process. Parallelism and the like are the current answers we have obtained as to the furthest point in our understanding, but like science, this is not to be interpreted as truth but merely our best approximation of it. By the time it has been accepted as 'truth' we will have moved on to something else.

Isn't the claim that there is no objective measure of value an objective measurement of value?

Well, we would need to look very closely about what there being no values implies, and what it means to make a value judgment.

(possible answer) From the perspective of the Subject, there are two aspects of the world - the Subject itself, and that which lies outside of the Subject, with the interface between the two being the Subject's Representation of Objects (broadly speaking). I think the "no objective value" means that we can't point to something outside of the Subject, and say that this is where value lies - however there may well be something like value contained in the Subject. This is a similar idea I believe to that of "Maya" - there is an ultimate reality, but that which we think to be ultimate reality is not ultimate reality, and anything we think is it isn't really it because we are so tied into it that we are unable to separate it out, though we can somewhat infer that it exists based on our present conceptualisations.

I would say that the true measure of value is simply what the Will wills, which of course is only how I see it as current and is not truly an objective measure of value. From the Nietzschean perspective, that is good which increases Power, that is bad which decreases it, where Power is roughly the Will being able to make itself known. From this perspective, to attribute value to a concept in one's Representation is to deny the Will, and so our aim is to help remove these shackles of rule-based morality so that one can become better in touch with their True morality. This thread has suggested reducing morality back to what we innately, as biological organisms, feel to be valuable, but this is only an intermediate step. The idea is to get closer and closer to what we feel innately to be valuable beyond anything else.

No objective value, means that true value cannot be inferred through objects, however by the processes of our Will we may attempt to get closer and closer to what value truly is.

Nihilism is the name given to such a process. Parallelism and the like are the current answers we have obtained as to the furthest point in our understanding, but like science, this is not to be interpreted as truth but merely our best approximation of it. By the time it has been accepted as 'truth' we will have moved on to something else.

If you have an idea of the true measure of value, why even bother noting its subjectivity? If you're going to act on it, then for all intents and purposes your measurement of value is an objective reality for you, and will be for those that are affected by your actions; in light of this, your noting the subjectivity of your measure of value seems like a courtesy, and a hollow one at that. Also, your last paragraph interests me. Essentially you are a dog chasing after cars?

If you have an idea of the true measure of value, why even bother noting its subjectivity? If you're going to act on it, then for all intents and purposes your measurement of value is an objective reality for you, and will be for those that are affected by your actions; in light of this, your noting the subjectivity of your measure of value seems like a courtesy, and a hollow one at that. Also, your last paragraph interests me. Essentially you are a dog chasing after cars?

Because noting its Subjectivity allows me to better conceive of what it is, IMHO. Objective reality is that which the Subject is placed in. If value precedes this, then it is not itself objective reality. The affect that it has on others is its logical effect. Yes, this is objective, but it has nothing to do with value unless you Subjectively judge it to.

Is there any alternative to being a "dog chasing after cars"? We constantly strive for perfection, not so that we may reach it, but because the striving itself is of value. IMHO.

If you mean that you do not denote a duality between the object and subject, I'm in. It makes a lot more sense then attempting to place subject in a vacuum that has no relation to reality, which I've heard some Enlightenment kooks attempt to do.

Is there any alternative to being a "dog chasing after cars"? We constantly strive for perfection, not so that we may reach it, but because the striving itself is of value. IMHO.

You kind of defeat your own idea when you carry out this process to its ultimate conclusion though, which I feel is eternal recurrence. Life as a means towards life is not a prodigious generation of new means, it has a consistent means, and that is life. Otherwise I think you run into the Heraclitus vs. Parmenides paradox, which is a problem of epistemology, really, as is this entire debate at its heart.